Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marita Cheng

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marita Cheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable. The award alone is not enough. -- see the other nominations for Young Australian of the Year below. I'm nominating them separately, because the degree of lack of notability differs. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As there is an article on the company she founded, the issue is really whether to merge or not. I would probably merge. But no need for deletion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of sources on her, not all related to the award. I'm adding them to the article, but there are enough in there now to meet the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are sufficient sources for WP:GNG. -- 101.119.15.182 (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it is sourced and now has events other than the Australian of the Year Award.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep her achievements are covered in major Australian newspapers. Is this a snow keep? LibStar (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't blame DDG for thinking that Young Australian of the Year is not notable, but it gets very wide coverage here in Australia. There's also the fact that to even get nominated, you've pretty much got to have enough of a profile that you'll meet the WP:GNG anyway, as demonstrated above. Plus, when you've even got User:LibStar, of all people, calling for a Snow Keep, you know you're onto something ;-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets WP:N due to multiple secondary sources. Orderinchaos 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It does look like Young Australian of the Year is a notable award. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It appears that a case proving notability has been firmly established, disagree that Young Australian of the Year is not notable. Dfadden (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.